


CAnhon MflNX<J. 




Glass_El^i-£>-i- 
Book C^ 



«^,'.'^?f.^r^n ^■^^•ATE ixrm 



2d Sessifli/ 



SPEECH OF 

HON. J. G. CANNON 



DELIVERED AT KANSAS CITY, MO., 
FRIDAY NIGHT, NOVEMBER 26, 1909 



PRESENTED BY MR. HALE 

December 7, 1909 
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1909 



\^ 



n 



b\ 



DEC 20 1909 
D. OF D. 



/ 






SPEECH OF HON. 1. G. CANNON AT KANSAS CITY, MO., 
FRIDAY NI(;HT. NOVEMBER 26, 1909. 



Mr. Toastmaster and Citizens: When Charles Sumner entered the 
United States Senate in 1851 it is said that Thomas H. Benton congrat- 
ulated him, but remarked that he had come upon the national stage too 
late, as all the great questions had been settled. 

Benton had been a foremost figure in the Senate for years, a giant 
among the greatest statesmen whose names are found in American 
history. They had dealt with and settled many great questions, but 
they performed merely the overture in the great drama of a people's 
government. 

Benton's dream of a railroad to the Pacific has been more than real* 
ized. Not one but seven railroads bind the continent together with 
bands of steel and make the whole nation homogeneous. The cannonball 
express and the fast freight carry the people and exchange their prod- 
ucts over the whole country more readily and economically than similar 
service was performed within the confines of a single State when Missouri 
sent Benton to the Senate, and now at one-half the cost for similar 
service in any country on earth. 

DEVELOPME.NT OF THE WEST. 

Kansas City was a frontier post when Benton died, and beyond lav 
"Bleeding Kansas," the most turbulent territory on the American con- 
tinent. To-day Kansas City is the metropolis of the Southwest and the 
gateway to a new empire. 

The twelve States that have been organized from the Louisiana ])ur- 
chase to-day have almost if not quite double the wealth that was accred- 
ited to the whole United States when Benton died. In i860 our total 
wealth in the United States was given as $16,000,000,000. To-day the 
wealth of the twelve States carved out of the Louisiana territory is 
estimated at nearly $30,000,000,000, or one-third of the total wealth of 
the whole United States. 

(3) 



I sometimes wonder what Benton would think could his spirit return 
and see what strides the Federal Government has made in the last 
half century in crossing state lines, not to dominate but to benefit the 
people of the States; to aid in the construction of transcontinental rail- 
roads, improve rivers and harbors, reclaim arid lands, regulate inter- 
state commerce, put the stamp of Government on our meat to give it 
currency throughout the world as readily as our gold, guarantee puritv 
of the people's food, protect health by quarantine laws, regulate the 
hours of railway employees, and make their employers on interstate 
railroads responsible for injuries. 

I sometimes wonder also whether the great body of the people who 
now live in this newer West realize what a revolution has taken place in 
legislation by Congress in the last half century since the election of 
Lincoln, or even what has been done since McKinley's election as Presi- 
dent and the enactment of the Dingley law only twelve years ago. 

THE DINGLEY LAW'S SUCCESS. 

The Fifty-third Congress, which enacted the Wilson-Gorman tariff law, 
appropriated $917,000,000, and President Cleveland had to borrow 
$265,000,000 to help out the revenues and meet the ordinary expendi- 
tures of the Federal Government. That Democratic tariff law failed 
to produce the necessary revenue for even Democratic simjilicity in 
administration. 

President McKinley was heralded as the advance agent of prosperity, 
and the Fifty-fifth Congress that enacted the Dingley law twelve years 
ago was called upon to ])rovide for the extraordinary expenditures of 
the war with Spain. It had to a])])r()priate nearly half a billion dollars 
to support our army and navy in that war, apply war taxes to meet a 
part of the expenditures and ])rovide for the go\ernmcnt of Porto Rico 
and the I'hili|)piiU'S. It did so, and the GoxernuKiU also issued bonds, 
as it has always done for war e.xpetiditures; but the Dingley law proved 
to be the best riwiuu- ])ro(Uieer we have ever had, as the Wilson-Gorman 
law ])roved to be the ])()orist. The- Dingley law, whicli was protective, 
brought the total net ordinary rc\iinies of the I'ederal (^lovernmenl 
from $348,o(K),()()() in [\w last \i'ar of tlic Deinoeratie aduiinislratioii to 
$4()5,o<K),{)()o in [\\v lirst yearof the Ri'publiean adniinist ration, and not- 
withstanding the re])eal of thi' war taxes in m;<)I, cintin<; olT thi' stani]) 
taxes, and reducing the taxes on toliaeeo and l)eer, the total net ordi 



nary revenues under the Dingley law in 1907 mounted up to $663,000,000, 
or the greatest revenues ever brought into the Federal Treasury. 

What was the cause? That law gave protection, produced prosperity 
at home, expanded our foreign commerce, and enabled the Government 
to extend its operations to meet many of the aspirations of the people 
who clamored for internal improvements, expansion of the army, mod- 
ernizing of the navy, protecting the forests, and developing the waste 
places in the arid region. 

So the development has gone forward for twelve years, and the Repub- 
lican Sixtieth Congress appropriated $2,000,000,000 where the Demo- 
cratic Fifty-third Congress appropriated less than $1,000,000,000. 

How did we spend it? Rebuilt the navy and reorganized the army 
at a cost of $2,000,000,000; doubled the appropriations for the military 
and naval academies; diverted $50,000,000 for the revenues for the 
reclamation of arid land; quadrupled the appropriations for the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture ; doubled the appropriations for the diplomatic serv- 
ice; appropriated $200,000,000 for the construction of the Panama Canal; 
more than doubled the appropriations for the Post-Office Department, 
with $40,000,000 a year for rural free delivery, and reduced the national 
debt to less than it was before the election of McKinley and the war 

with Spain. 

PROGRKSSIVE LEGISLATION. 

We have enacted new laws that were denounced as revolutionary when 
they were under consideration, but which are now looked upon as falling 
short of expectations. We have enacted a railroad rate law; a pure- 
food law; secured the denunciation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty which 
stood in the way of the Panama Canal, and more than half constructed 
that great waterway; created the Department of Commerce and Labor 
and in that established a Bureau of Corporations which has great power 
in the investigation of corporations; begun a national system of irriga- 
tion; passed an employers' liability law, a safety-appliance law, a law 
limiting the working hours of railway emplo^^ees, a meat-inspection law, 
the denatured alcohol law, a law creating a permanent census bureau, 
a law for the proper administration of the National Forestry Service, an 
emergency currency law, admitted Oklahoma as a State, established 
rural free delivery, authorized more public buildings than had been 
constructed by the Government in all its previous history, and finally, 
enacted a new tariff law, which some critics denounce because the reduc- 
tions are not great enough. 



NECESSITY FOR REVENUE. 

vSingularly the critics who insisted that the tariff should be further low- 
ered are the same critics who are dissatisfied because we have not gone 
faster and farther and appropriated more money. Gentlemen, we can 
not eat our cake and have it. If we want to return to the tariff of 1894, 
known as the "Wilson law," we must also return to the democratic 
simplicity of expending less than $500,000,000 a year, or go bankrupt. 

vSince the enactment of the Dingley law in 1897 the estimates furnished 
by the executive departments have been greater than the appropriations 
by more than $481,000,000. For the fiscal year 1909 the estimates were 
$71,000,000 greater than the appropriations, and the Treasury deficit 
was more than $60,000,000; and for the present fiscal year the estimates 
were $59,000,000 greater than the appropriations, while there is still a 
deficit in the Treasury, or greater expenditures than we have revenues 
to meet. 

REVENUES MUST BE ADJUSTED TO MEET EXPENDITURES. 

The Federal Government, with its appropriations of $1,000,000,000 a 
year, is a tremendous organization, with many able, energetic, and 
enthusiastic men at the head of the departments and bureaus. They 
all desire to forward the work they have in hand with the utmost expe- 
dition, just as the heads of departments in any great business corpora- 
tion are energetic in their efforts. But there must be some power of 
adjustment of the revenues to meet expenditures in the Government as 
well as in every business organization, and the Constitution places that 
responsibility on Congress. Congress has not had a light task to perform 
in adjusting the revenues and making the necessary cuts in the estimates 
of the various departments so as not to cripple any part of the Govern- 
ment and at the same time conserve the credit of the nation. 

But, in addition to the estimates i)resente(l by the (kpartmenls under 
the mandate of law, every one of the 391 Members of the House and the 
92 vSenators have demands from their constituents, and it has been esti- 
mated by the chairmen of tlie various connnittees that lia\'e jurisdiction 
over appropriations that each year these fleniands are almost if not c|uite 
double the ap])ro])riations. Tiu' prineipU' of raising rcxenue is therefore 
a vital question in our system of goverununt . 

I believe that the new tariff law will prot(.t-t our industries and produce 
tlie neeessar\' rexeiiui' for carr\ing forward the griat policies upon which 
the Go\ernnient has enl( ixd. 



THE PAYNE BILL — INCREASES REVENUES. 

The Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance, issued by the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, shows that for the months of 
August, September, and October under the new tariff law there was a 
substantial increase in all imports over the imports of the same months 
in 1908. The increase in imports amounted to $73,000,000 over those 
for the same period in 1908 and $21,000,000 over the same period in 1907, 
the greatest year under the Dingley law. Our exports for the same 
months increased over those for last year by $41,000,000 and $25,000,000 
more than for the same period in 1907. This is an indication of what 
we may expect from the settlement of the tariff question. Business 
that had halted has gone ahead with confidence, knowing just what are 
the regulations which the Government imposes upon importation. 

RAILROADS INDICATE PROSPERITY. 

There are other and even better signs in our purely do mestic affairs. 
The railroads, the manufacturing estabUshments, merchants and pro- 
ducers of every kind are going forward with confidence in settled con- 
ditions. It is predicted in railroad circles that there will be as much 
capital employed in double tracks, increased terminal facilities, etc., in 
the next five years as there is already invested in these roads. 

DANGER IN AGITATION. 

Now, gentlemen, there is only one thing that can halt this confident 
move forward to give the country another era of prosperity such as we 
had from 1897 to 1907, and that is agitation for the mere purpose of 
agitation, without any well-conceived healthy purpose in view. 

INSURGENTS REFUSE TO ACCEPT COMPROMISE. 

The Senators and Representatives who call themselves "insurgents" 
and who voted against the enactment of the Payne bill, voted to in- 
crease or maintain the duties on the industries and products of their 
own States and sections. They were protectionists for their own peo- 
ple, but they were opposed to protection for other people in other sec- 
tions. 

Senator La Follette did not vote to increase the duties on lead and 
zinc, but he defended the Finance Committee's schedules on those 
products in speeches, saying they were not high enough, explaining, 
however, that he could not vote on the question because he said he had 
a personal pecuniar}'- interest in the outcome. 



8 

Senators La Follette and Bristow and the other so-called insurgents 
voted to increase the duty on barley and barley malt for the reason that 
their constituents produce barley. In other words, these gentlemen who 
call themselves "insurgents" voted with the Republicans on schedules 
that protected the products of their constituents and with the Democrats 
on schedules that protected the products of other sections of the country. 
That was their right, but when they voted with the Democrats against 
the final enactment of the bill they voted to maintain the old schedules 
of the Dingley law and were not supporting the pledge of the Republican 
platform or the pledges made by President Taft. 

There was not one member of the Republican majority who secured 
in the bill as enacted. all that he had contended for. President Taft, 
Senator Aldrich, and myself all accepted more compromises than the 
so-called "insurgents" were asked to accept. In Illinois we wanted 
free lumber, and my constituents wanted a duty on petroleum, because 
they have the greatest independent oil-producing district in the world. 
We were beaten, but we did not make our own interests the only inter- 
pretation of the Republican pledge to revise the tariff. 

CUMMINS ALONE CAN READ HIMSELF OUT OF PARTY. 

Senator Cummins complains that I have read him out of the Repub- 
lican party. Other sensitive gentlemen made the same complaint against 
President Taft. The Senator does me too much honor. I have not 
the authority to read any man out nor have I the disposition. I think 
I may say the same for the President. I have been a" member of the 
Republican party since it was organized and I have never known of any 
man or group of men being read out of any party except by themselves. 

There was a minority in the party opposed to President Lincoln's 
conduct of the war, some because he did not move fast enough and 
others because he went too fast. Some of these people took themselves 
out of the ]Kirty and supported General McClellan against Lincoln in 
1864. There were RepubUcans who were dissatisfied with President 
Grant's administration, and, not being able to control the party, they 
went out and sup])()rted Greeley in 1872. 

In 1 884 there was a minority that opposed the nomination of James G. 
Blaine, and after participating in the convention went out and supported 
Mr. Cleveland at the ])<)lls. aiding in his election. In 1 S96 there was 
another niinorit\ that oi)])osi(l the a(lo])tion of the gold standard as a part 
of the Republican platform. They went out, organized the silver party. 



and then joined the Democrats in support of Mr. Bryan. In the same 
year there was a minority in the Democratic party opposed to Mr. 
Bryan's free-silver platform, and they supported McKinley, contributing 
to his election. 

Those men who found themselves in the minority in their own party and 
too much committed to their ideas to accept the will of the majority, read 
themselves out of the parties to which they had formerly belonged. That 
was their right, and is the right of every man to-day. It is Senator 
Cummins's right and Senator La Follette's right ; but manly men of all 
political views have in the past exercised that right openly and have not 
gone about in garments of martyrdom because they were not allowed to 
control the majority. Those men in the past did not lose caste as citi- 
zens. They exercised an inalienable right to tmite their efforts with any 
party that best represented their views. It is the kind of independence 
that wins respect and that counts in our political contests. 

The senator, I think, aptly recalled the story of the three tailors of 
Tooley street who met and prepared the preamble, "We, the people 
of England." That is a good illustration of the ego that often dominates 
the minority everywhere, in town meetings, state legislatures, Federal 
Congresses, in churches, and in every place where men must cooperate. 
The tailors of Tooley street are ever with us, and when they can not be 
"We the people" in action as well as in the preamble, they take it out 
in resolving and declaiming. 

There was one gigantic struggle in the Republican party which is 
memorable as the greatest convention of strong and manly men that 
has ever been known in this country. That was the national Republican 
convention of 1880, when the followers of the "silent soldier" of Appo- 
mattox and the admirers of the "plumed knight" from Maine were 
pitted against each other. After many days of balloting the followers 
of Blaine and other candidates opposed to Grant united on General 
Garfield, who then received the majority vote of the convention and 
became the candidate for President. The famous 306 went down with 
colors flying, but not to don sackcloth or sulk in their tents. Those men 
had the same fidelity to the principles that governed the party that the 
old guard of Grant — to which many of them had belonged — had in war, 
and they marched out of that convention to take up the Garfield banner 
and carry it to victory. Let me commend the history of that one 
political battle to the Senator. 



lO 
PRESIDENT TAFT V. SENATOR CUMMINS. 

Senator Cummins declares that the Payne law is a repudiation of the 
Chicago platform. President Taft, when he signed the bill, made a pub- 
lic statement in which he said: 

There have been a great number of real decreases in rates and they constitute a 
sufficient amount to justify a statement that this bill is a substantial downward 
revision and a reduction of excessive rates. 

In his Winona speech the President declared : 

The Payne tariff bill is the best tariff bill the Republican party has ever passed. 

Senator Cummins declares that the issue from now until the national 
convention in 191 2 is, Shall the men now in control of party destinies be 
permitted further to disregard plain party platforms? 

President Taft is the recognized leader of the Republican party and 
the great majority of Republicans are his followers. The President and 
the Republican majority in Congress cooperated in the legislation that 
has been written on the statute books. With whom did Senator Cummins 
cooperate? Let the record of the votes on this legislation from begin- 
ning to end decide. 

Mr. Bryan wants the war against the Republicans who enacted this 
legislation to go on; Senator Cummins also wants it to go on. When 
Lincoln found an army marching on the national capital from the South 
and a body of sympathizers in the North encouraging that army, he said 
it was difficult to determine which was the most threatening to the 
welfare of the nation. History repeats itself, and when Senators Cum- 
mins, LaFollette, Brsitow, and their so-called "progressive" following 
join hands with Mr. Bryan in making war upon the Republican Members 
of Congress who passed the tarilT bill and upon I hi' President who signed 
it, in that contest 1 know of but one way lo treat them, and tliat is to 
fight them just as we fight Mr, Pryan and his following. 

CHAMP CUARK AND Tlir; KIU.ES. 

Your distinguished fellow-citizen of Missouri, the Hon. Champ Clark, 
has (IcMie me the honor on several occasions lately to take issue with a 
remark made by me to the efTect that the fight against the rules of the 
House was a fight to i)revent aiiv tarilT legislation. The Associated Press 
in a (Hspatc-li from Sioux Citv, Iowa, nndir datr of Octnlx'r 22, quoted 
Mr. Clark as saying: 

This is untrue and is proved uiiliue l)y llie resolution 1 <iffercd touching upon the 
rules, which authorized the vSpeaker lo iiumcdialely appoint the Committee on Ways 



II 

and Means, and that coniniittee is the cn\e that luid cliari;c ol the tariff l)ill. The 
resohttion also authorized the Speaker to appoint the Committees on Rules, Mileage, 
and Accounts. These are all the committees which by any construction could have 
anything to do with the tariff bill. 

If Mr. Clark is correctly quoted by the Associated Press, he did not 
have a copy of his resohttion with him or a very clear recollection as to 
what it contained. That resolution proposed to adopt for the special ses- 
sion the rules of the last Congress, and authorize the Speaker to appoint 
the Committees on Ways and Means, Printing, Accounts, Mileage, and 
Enrolled Bills for the special session only. It then provided that the 
Committee on Rules should consist of 15 members "who shall be elected 
by the Members of the House, said committee to elect its own chairman," 
and then "Resolved, That the following named Members of the House be, 
and they are hereby, elected and appointed members of the Committee 
on Rules," naming 15 members in his resolution. 

Mr. Clark is quoted as describing the statement attributed to me as 
"balderdash." That seems to be as inoffensive an expression as I can 
employ in reference to the interview or statement of ^Ir. Clark, though a 
former President would have used a shorter and uglier word. 

ALLIANCE AGAINST TARIFF BILL. 

I do not believe that all the gentlemen who voted with Mr. Clark on 
the rules realized that they were his allies against the Republican party, 
but it would reflect more seriously than I care to in this presence on 
Mr. Clark's knowledge of parliamentary practice and the rules of the 
House to believe that he did not fully and clearly understand the whole 
situation. Mr. Clark assumed an attitttde of noninterference with the 
tariff bill, but he knew, or ought to have known, that by his resolution 
he proposed in the first line to adopt for the first session of the Sixty- 
first Congress the rules of the Sixtieth Congress, and that ttnder these 
rules it would be possible to bring the tariff bill to a vote only by con- 
sidering every one of the Xoo paragraphs, with thousands of items, in 
Committee of the Whole, with each paragraph subject to amendment 
in the second degree — a method by which the bill could be lield in Com- 
mittee of the Whole indefinitely — or by the adoption of a special rule 
fixing a definite time for a vote, which wotild have only been possible l)y 
the action of a maioritv of tlic Motise u])on a report from the Conimillee 
on Rules. 



12 

There is where Mr. Clark seemed to exercise the most acute intelU- 
gence in naming the members of the Committee on Rules, to which any 
special rule would have to be referred. He named on this committee 
of 15, five Republicans who participated in the RepubUcan caucus and 
were in harmony with the administration plan of an early settlement of 
the tariff, six Democrats who had participated in the Democratic caucus, 
and who were loyal to Mr. Clark's every wdsh to prevent tariff legislation, 
and then he selected four so-called "insurgent Republicans'" who had 
refused to enter any caucus. Two of these "insurgent Republicans," 
Norris of Nebraska, and Nelson of Wisconsin, cooperated \vith Mr. 
Clark in every move against the consideration of the tariff bill, consulted 
with him freely, and when they spoke or voted it was to support his 
contention as loyally as did any Democrat in the House. 

These two gentlemen and the six Democrats would have made a clear 
majority of }klr. Clark's Committee on Rules, even had Mr. Gardner, of 
Massachusetts, and Mr. Hayes, of Cahfornia, voted with the live other 
Republicans, as I believe they would, in favor of a special rule to fix a 
date for the vote on the tariff bill. With eight men out of fifteen on that 
committee to consider a special rule, does anyone suppose Mr. Clark 
would have neglected his opportunity to keep that bill from coming to 
a vote or any opportunity to embarrass the administration? 

Had Mr. Clark's resolution been adopted the House of Representatives 
would still be in session considering the innumerable amendments the 
Democrats would have offered to the hundreds of paragraphs in the 
tariff bill, and the United vStates vSenale would still be waiting for the bill 
to be sent over for its consideration. 

Tin-; woi.N'Us ()KFi;k pkotixtiox. 

Mr. Clark knows .ftsop's fables by liearl and he has foruuikiled nuicli 
of his i)()lilical philosophy on lliem. In one of lliesi' fables the woU'es 
wanted the sheep to discharge the dogs and employ the wolves to defend 
them. Mr. Clark's Connnittee on Rules would have given the same 
protection to the tariff bill that tlu' wolves would have given to the 
sheep. TIk- Rtpuhlicau niaiority of ihr IIousi', with a ek'ar niajorit)- in 
suj)porl of the tariff bill, would ha\e been helpless in any effort to regis- 
ter its will, because any resolution for a special rule to bring the bill to a 
\()te wouUl have liad to be referred to the Connnittee on Rules dominated 
l)y Champ Clark, leader of the niinorit \ and kadiT ol" tlie efforts to prevent 
IIk' i-nactment of the bill. 



13 

To put it in another way. the nominal Repui)hcan majority in the House 
would have been destroyed, if all the minority had cooperated with the 
so-called "insurgent Republicans,'- and the very first pledge of the Repub- 
lican national convention and the RepubHcan President, Mr. Taft, would 
have failed as completely as though a Democratic House of Representa- 
tives had been elected instead of a House with a nominal Republican 
majority of 46. 

RULE FOR WILSON KILL. 

Mr. Clark has always been regular in his own party. For his benefit 
and that of Mr. Bryan I cite the rule adopted by the Democratic major- 
it v August 13, 1894, for consideration of the Wilson tariff bill, for which 
both Mr. Clark and Mr. Bryan voted, and which accepted en bloc over 
600 Senate amendments. This rule was reported by Representative 
Wilson, of West Virginia, from the Committee on Rules, but he stated 
that it was in accordance with the action and will of the Democratic 
caucus : 

Resolved, That after the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order in the 
House to move that the order heretofore made requesting a conference with the 
Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H. R. 4864 be rescinded; that 
the conferees heretofore ajipointed on the part of the House be discharged from 
further duty in that behalf, and that the House recede from its disagreement to the 
Senate amendments to said bill in gross and agree to the same; that after two 
hours' debate on said motion (which shall be indivisible) the vote shall be taken 
without delay or other motion. 

CRISP AND BRY.^N DEFEND THE RULE. 

Speaker Crisp left the chair and took the floor in support of the rule. 
Among other things, he said : 

I want the gentleman (Mr. Cockran) to understand, and I want the country to 
understand, that the deserters from the cause of tarifY reform are not these con- 
ferees and others who have been making this great struggle and who now advise that 
this bill be accepted, but the deserters are rather those gentlemen who in the midst 
of the fight because they do not approve all the provisions of this bill hold back and 
say, "We will have no lot or part in this struggle further." 

Mr. Bryan, in defending his vote on that bill, said: 

I voted for everything in that bill to-day because that is the best we could do, and 
now I am going to do better by voting for these separate bills. I want to suggest to 
those gentlemen who find fault because we did not go far eni>ugh that they stand 
in the attitude of the criminal who when sent to the penitentiary complained of the 
inefficiency of the prosecuting attorney and said: "He has not done his duty; he 
ought to have had me hung, but instead oi that I get olT with a term in the peni- 
tentiarv." 



14 

THE RULES OF THE HOUSE. 

Now a word about the rules of the House of Representatives, which 
have been so much discussed by people who know so little about them 
or those who have simply found them a convenient subject for mis- 
representation. 

We have had these rules since the beginning of the Government, and 
substantially without change for the past twenty years, until a few 
months ago two changes were made at the suggestion of the so-called 
"insurgents," who then voted against the adoption of the modifications. 

In the Fifty-first Congress, presided over by Speaker Reed, changes 
were made to prevent filibustering and enable the majority to conduct 
the business for which it was responsible. The Democratic minority 
denounced these changes as despotic and revolutionary and succeeded 
in inflaming the country against Mr. Reed as a tyrant who throttled the 
will of the people's representatives. Such was the success of that agita- 
tion that the Democrats controlled the House in the Fifty-second and 
Fiftv-third Congresses. In the Fifty-second Congress they had to try 
to get along without some of the features of the Reed rules which they 
had denounced, but in the Fifty-third Congress, when they had a tariff 
bill to enact, thev made a clean sweep of their old prejudices and took 
these rules to their breasts as though they had originated them. They 
went further and enlarged the power of the Committee on Rules by 
giving it authority to sit during the sessions of the House and re]«)rl at 
an^• time and witliout previous notice. 

HRV.W FOR COMMITTEE OX RULES. 

Anyone who desires to know what tlie Dt'nioorats vva\\\ think of tlu'Se 
rules should turn to the Congressional Record for thi.' first session of the 
Fifty-third Congress. There he will find William J. Bryan defending 
them with voice and vote and especially defending the Conunittee on 
RuU'S ha\ing tlie right to bring in a ruU' to sto]) lilihustrring. lli' de- 
clari'd : 

W'l' are simiilv inutiiii; ]w\\vr in tlic- liaiids ut tlu' Iluiisi' to condiuM its business and 
1(1 stiij) flrlaw 

Did yon LVir hear Mr. Hrxan ridicule this idi'iuieal stalcinent whni U 
came from a Kr])ul)lican .•' 



15 

In that Congress Speaker Crisp left the chair to defend the rules, some- 
thing no other Speaker ever did, and he, like Mr. Bryan, declared that — 

The power lodged in that committee (on rules) is simply the power to report to the 
House a proposition for its action. / 

He very truthfully said that the House could always vote down a report 
from the Committee on Rules if a majority opposed it. Both Crisp and 
Bryan were sincere then and they simply stated an exact truth which 
had been stated many times before and has been stated many times since. 

My friend, Champ Clark, was also in that Congress and voted for the 
adoption of these rules. He was right then, as men who have responsi- 
bility placed upon them are more often manly and honest than when they 
have no responsibility and are tempted to play the demagogue. 

If the Democrats should again secure control of the House and Mr. 
Clark should realize his ambition and be elected Speaker, he will, as cer- 
tain as he maintains manhood worthy such responsibility, return to the 
position he occupied then and again become an ardent defender of the 
rules. 

Edmund Burke said many years ago : 

1 find it impossible to conceive that any one believes in his own policies or thinks 
them of any weight who refuses to adopt the means of having them reduced into 
practice. 

THE FIRST INSURGENT. 

The rules will reinain substantially as they have been and are so long 
as we have a Congress, and the majority party, whether Republican or 
Democratic, responsible to the people for legislation, will be their defenders. 
The opponents of the rules have always been the men who did not feel 
responsibility for the transaction of the business laid before Congress. 
Those who denounced them in the past have lived to defend them as the 
wheel turned and they came into reponsibility. 

Ever since history began the man in the minority has been seeking 
some device by which he could overcome the will of the majority, and 
we have a popular, if not absolutely reliable, record of one celebrated 
character antedating history whose fiat was, "Better to reign in hell than 
to serve in heaven.'' There was our first great insurgent, and he was 
pitched over the battlements of heaven. Since the creation of man there 
have been those at work on earth to encourage insurrection against order, 
which is heaven's first law. 



i6 

PAYNE TARIFF LAW WILL JUSTIFY ITSELF. 

A word in conclusion: The country waited from March until August 
for the enactment of a tariff bill. During that period, on account of the 
uncertainty, it has been conservatively estimated that the loss due to 
the halting of business and production amounted to $10,000,000 a day. 
Since the enactment of the new law production in our own country and 
imports from foreign countries have greatly increased, and day by day 
conditions are improving. The farmers, who comprise one-third of our 
population, are stepping high an^ some of them are riding in automobiles. 
In mine and factory as well as in transportation and commerce opportuni- 
ties for employment are daily growing better. The revenues of the 
Government are constantly increasing. The Payne tariff law is not 
perfect — perfection resides in Deity alone — but I agree most heartily with 
Representative Payne, of New York, and with the President of the 
United States in his Winona speech, that the new tariff law is the best 
one ever passed under Republican leadership. 

Neither Bryan, Cummins, La Follette, Bristow, or their followers claim 
that it can be changed during the coming four years, but they all agree 
in one thing, namely, that they will agitate — and they are agitating — for 
additional tariff legislation, and as the car of prosperity, drawn by 
90,000,000 people, moves on they are seeking to hinder its progress by 
criticism and denunciation, and this, too, within three months of its 
enactment. 

The demagogue we have always with us, and, as ours is a government 
of the people, the only way to dispose of him is to move on. The proof 
of the pudding is the eating of it, and I am perfectly willing to trust the 
verdict of a prosperous and happy people in the elections in November, 
1 910, after the new tariff law has been in operation for over a year. 



O 



■-^..-/^^■^■i. 



v^y''^;^-'"r''gCAi 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 

lllilliillllllilllillillllilililiilllllll 



013 982 429 5 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 982 429 5 






